Sureshkumar S. Lakhotia v. National e-Assessment Centre & Ors.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: Natural Justice

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Final assessment order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre quashed due to insufficient time being given to respond the Draft Assessment Order. The National Faceless Assessment Centre served a Draft Assessment Order for AY 2018-19 on the Petitioner-assessee on Friday, 23rd April 2021 at 1:40 pm requiring the assessee to respond to the same by Monday, 26th April 2021 by 11:59 pm. At this time, weekends were subject to strict weekend lockdown in Pune owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee immediately lodged grievances with the e-Nivaran facility in the e-filing account on the Income Tax website’s portal on account of such less time being given to the assessee as well as sought a personal hearing before passing of the final order. The assessee further pointed out that the CBDT had extended the time for completion of assessment till 30th June 2021 from the existing deadline…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

WRIT PETITION NO.2848 OF 2021 Sureshkumar S. Lakhotia .... Petitioner Vs. National e-Assessment Centre & Ors. …. Respondents Mr. Rahul Sarda a/w Mr. Sankalp Anantwar & Mr. Tushar Gaikwad i/by SMA Law Partners for Petitioner. Mr. Sham V. Walve with Pritish Chatterjee for Respondents-Revenue. Coram : K.R. SHRIRAM & ABHAY AHUJA, JJ Date : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2021 P.C.: 1. Petitioner received a notice dated 23 rd April, 2021 for Assessment Year 2018-2019 calling upon to show cause why the assessment should not be completed as per Draft Assessment Order. This notice is digitally signed by the Officer at 1.40 pm. on 23 rd April 2021 and Petitioner was called to file its response by 11.59 pm. on 26 th

Dusane 2/4 26 wp 2848.2021.doc April, 2021. 23 rd April, 2021 was Friday, 24 th April, 2021 was 4 th Saturday and 25 th April, 2021 was a Sunday. Therefore Petitioner has been given effectively a little more 30 hours that too spread over a week end to respond. Petitioner immediately lodged a grievance on 23rd April, 2021 itself as could be seen from the printout of the acknowledgment / grievance from Respondents’ website e-Nivahan, in which Petitioner has informed Respondent that the assessee is based in Pune, which is subject to complete lock-down and though the assessee shall try its best to respond, it may not be able to respond within the time provided and sought additional time till 29 th April, 2021. Petitioner also sought personal hearing. At Exhibit “Y” to the Petition is also screen shot of the Income-Tax portal, which contains the details of eproceedings adjournments sought, which also indicates that Respondent have received an adjournment request on 24 th April, 2021 and adjournment has been sought upto 10 th May, 2021. Detailed reason for adjournment is also mentioned and that also indicates what is recorded above.

Dusane 3/4 26 wp 2848.2021.doc 2. In addition, in the reason, it is mentioned that the Department has extended the time for completion of assessment till 30th June, 2021 and therefore the time to make submissions be also extended. Notwithstanding this request, Respondents have passed the assessment order dated 29 th April, 2021 as per draft provided to Petitioner by observing that no reply or explanation has been furnished by Petitioner and no documentary evidence has also been submitted. It is, this order which is impugned in this petition. 3. In the affidavit-in-reply, Respondent No. 4 has repeated what is stated in the impugned order that no request for an adjournment was received from the assessee upto 26 th April, 2021, i.e., the date of hearing or even upto 29 th April, 2021 when the order was passed. The statement and affidavit-in-reply and orders noted in the impugned order that no reply or explanation was furnished is contrary to what the records indicate. 4. We have also to note that the averments in the petition as contained in paragraphs 24 and 25 that Petitioner had raised grievance

Dusane 4/4 26 wp 2848.2021.doc and also filed an adjournment request has not been denied in the affidavit-in-reply. 5. In the circumstances, it is a fit case to interfere. 6. The order dated 29 th April, 2021 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the concerned authority to consider denovo and pass such order as it deems fit in accordance with law, after granting personal hearing to Petitioner. Mr. Sarda states that Petitioner will submit its objections to the Draft Assessment Order within one week from Respondent No.1 providing the link to Petitioner, in which the response has to be uploaded. 7. If any notice or demand has been issued consequent to the order impugned and set aside in this order, those notices and demand also stand set aside. 8. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. 9. Petition disposed. ( ABHAY AHUJA, J.) ( K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Sureshkumar S. Lakhotia v. National e-Assessment Centre & Ors. concerns final assessment order passed by national faceless assessment centre quashed due to insufficient time being given to respond the draft assessment order. the national faceless assessment centre served a draft assessment order for ay 2018-19 on the petitioner-assessee on friday, 23rd april 2021 at 1:40 pm requiring the assessee to respond to the same by monday, 26th april 2021 by 11:59 pm. at this time, weekends were subject to strict weekend lockdown in pune owing to the covid-19 pandemic. the assessee immediately lodged grievances with the e-nivaran facility in the e-filing account on the income tax website’s portal on account of such less time being given to the assessee as well as sought a personal hearing before passing of the final order. the assessee further pointed out that the cbdt had extended the time for completion of assessment till 30th june 2021 from the existing deadline… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT PETITION NO.2848 OF 2021.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Quashed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Final assessment order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre quashed due to insufficient time being given to respond the Draft Assessment Order. The National Faceless Assessment Centre served a Draft Assessment Order for AY 2018-19 on the Petitioner-assessee on Friday, 23rd April 2021 at 1:40 pm requiring the assessee to respond to the same by Monday, 26th April 2021 by 11:59 pm. At this time, weekends were subject to strict weekend lockdown in Pune owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee immediately lodged grievances with the e-Nivaran facility in the e-filing account on the Income Tax website’s portal on account of such less time being given to the assessee as well as sought a personal hearing before passing of the final order. The assessee further pointed out that the CBDT had extended the time for completion of assessment till 30th June 2021 from the existing deadline… Its practical value lies in the way the Bombay High Court connected the governing provisions—Natural Justice—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of Natural Justice and the decision date 2021-09-08; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is Sureshkumar S. Lakhotia v. National e-Assessment Centre & Ors., the proceeding is WRIT PETITION NO.2848 OF 2021, and the decision is dated 2021-09-08. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as K.R. SHRIRAM & ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with Natural Justice. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Quashed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• Natural Justice — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• OERLIKON BALZERS COATING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR — Court / Tribunal to be verified · Quashed / set aside
• UCB India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside
• Adityaraj Builders v. State of Maharashtra — Bombay High Court · Quashed / set aside
• SPL Labs India Pvt ltd Vs ITO,Circle 6 Bangalore — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 592 judgments
• Explore Appeals, Revision, Rectification & Procedure

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY